Green v. Higgins
535 P.2d 446, 217 Kan. 217 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court of equity may deny relief to a plaintiff who has engaged in willful, fraudulent, or unconscionable conduct that is directly related to the subject matter of the lawsuit. This "clean hands" doctrine applies even if the defendant participated in the misconduct and the conduct was aimed at defrauding third parties.
Facts:
- Damon and Cleo Higgins granted Robert Brown and Mark Gilman a right of first refusal to purchase a specific tract of land.
- The Higgins also gave real estate agent Lienna McCulley an exclusive right to handle the sale of that land if it occurred before June 1, 1971.
- In April 1971, Philip and Barbara Green entered into an agreement with the Higgins to purchase the land for $30,000.
- To avoid paying McCulley's commission, the Greens and the Higgins mutually agreed to post-date their contract to June 2, 1971.
- To circumvent Brown and Gilman's right of first refusal, Philip Green suggested creating a fictitious contract.
- The Greens then prepared a fake contract showing a sale price of $40,000 to a corporation controlled by Mr. Green.
- The Higgins presented this fraudulent contract to Brown and Gilman, who, believing the inflated price was legitimate, declined to exercise their right of first refusal.
- After the third parties' rights were defeated through these schemes, the Higgins refused to complete the sale to the Greens.
Procedural Posture:
- Philip and Barbara Green (plaintiffs) filed an action in district court for specific performance of the real estate contract against Damon and Cleo Higgins (defendants).
- The Higgins filed a counterclaim seeking damages and to quiet title to their land.
- After depositions were taken, the Greens moved for summary judgment.
- The Higgins filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, raising the defense of unclean hands.
- The district court treated the Higgins' motion as one for summary judgment, as it considered the depositions.
- The district court dismissed both the Greens' petition for specific performance and the Higgins' counterclaim, finding both parties had unclean hands.
- The Greens (appellants) appealed the dismissal of their petition to the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the clean hands doctrine bar a plaintiff from receiving equitable relief for a breach of contract when both the plaintiff and defendant engaged in fraudulent conduct related to the contract in order to deceive third parties?
Opinions:
Majority - Prager, J.
Yes. The clean hands doctrine bars a plaintiff from receiving equitable relief when they have engaged in fraudulent conduct directly related to the transaction at issue. The doctrine is based on the maxim that 'he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.' Its primary purpose is to protect the integrity of the court, not to settle rights between wrongdoers. The court will not lend its aid to a suitor whose conduct in the controversy has been so unconscionable as to shock the moral sensibilities of the judge. The misconduct must be willful, fraudulent, and directly related to the subject matter of the litigation. The doctrine applies even if the defendant participated in the misconduct and even if the fraud was directed at third parties rather than the defendant, because the court refuses to involve itself in enforcing such a transaction for either party.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that the clean hands doctrine serves to protect the integrity of the judiciary rather than to shield a defendant from liability. The court clarifies that the plaintiff's misconduct does not need to have injured the defendant for the doctrine to apply. By barring relief even when both parties are complicit in defrauding third parties, the decision establishes a strong precedent that courts of equity will not be used as instruments to enforce agreements tainted by fraud. This holding reinforces that a litigant's own conduct in the underlying transaction is a critical threshold issue for obtaining equitable remedies.
Unlock the full brief for Green v. Higgins